BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT
(a) General principles
27. The general principles concerning the question whether an
interference is “necessary in a democratic society” are well established in the
Court’s case-law and have recently been summarised in NIT S.R.L.
v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 28470/12, § 177, 5 April 2022). The
general principles applicable to cases in which the right to freedom of
expression under Article 10 of the Convention has to be balanced against the
right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention were set out
by the Grand Chamber in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08,
§§ 78-95, ECHR 2012) and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC],
nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 95-113, ECHR 2012). Notably, the Court
has identified a number of criteria, including: contribution to a debate of
public interest, how well known the person affected is, the prior conduct of
the person concerned, and the content, form and consequences of the
publication. Where it examines an application lodged under Article 10, the
Court will also examine the way in which the information was obtained and
its veracity, and the gravity of the penalty imposed on the journalists or
publishers. Where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national
authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law,
the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the
domestic courts (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés
v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 92-93, ECHR 2015 (extracts), with further
references).
28. With respect to audiovisual media, the Court has held that the task of
service providers to impart information necessarily includes “duties and
responsibilities”, as well as limits which the media must impose on itself
spontaneously, and that wherever information bringing into play the image of
a person is at stake, journalists are required to take into account, in so far as
possible, the impact of the information, pictures or video recordings to be
published prior to their dissemination (see I.V.Ț. v. Romania, no. 35582/15,
§ 48, 1 March 2022, with further reference). Where the “duties and
responsibilities” of journalists are concerned, the potential impact of the
medium of expression involved is an important factor in assessing the
proportionality of the interference. In this context, the Court has
acknowledged that account must be taken of the fact that the audiovisual
media have a more immediate and powerful effect than the print media. The
former have means of conveying through images meanings which the print
media are not able to impart (see NIT S.R.L., cited above, § 182, with further
references). This applies a fortiori to publications on the Internet, since the
capacity to store and transmit information, and the risk of harm posed by
content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of
human rights and freedoms – particularly the right to respect for private life
– is certainly higher than that posed by the press (see, for instance,
7